|
|
|
| Tue, Nov. 24 - - Mobile - RSS | |
|
|
Teachers weigh in on Wal-Mart in Orange
Saying Wilderness battlefield 'is under siege,' U.S. educators implore Orange to find another site for Wal-Mart Supercenter
Date published: 7/27/2009 BY CLINT SCHEMMER In the classroom, at least, nobody wants to make the teacher mad. But dozens of America's educators are angry as hornets about Wal-Mart Stores Inc.'s plan to build a Supercenter near a national park at the Wilderness in Virginia. This weekend, teachers visiting the Fredericksburg area from across the nation hurled a respectful salvo at the retail giant, spontaneously penning a letter to Orange County. Orange officials are expected to decide tonight or tomorrow whether to allow a 220,000-square-foot retail center to be built near the entrance to Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park. Writing Lee Frame, chairman of the Orange Board of Supervisors, the teachers asked the county's leaders to "respect this hallowed battleground of American history and select another site in Orange County for this commercial development." Calling Civil War battlefields "irreplaceable resources for those who seek to impart the significance of the American Civil War," they said of the Wilderness, "Unfortunately, this historic landscape is under siege." One hundred fifteen teachers signed the letter, which will be hand-delivered to Frame tonight when the Orange board holds a public hearing on the proposal to build the largest retail center in the county. They make up the vast majority of 140 educators from 32 states who were attending the eighth annual Teacher Institute sponsored by the Civil War Preservation Trust, a three-day conference. "As teachers, we the undersigned feel strongly that the Wilderness Battlefield and other historic sites play an integral role in educating future generations about the events that have shaped our nation," the teachers wrote.
"We meet this weekend in neighboring Spotsylvania County, Va., to celebrate this region's incomparable Civil War history and explore ways to improve the quality of history education in our classrooms, scattered across the country," they said. "Even as we strive to bring the past alive for our students, we recognize that a preserved battlefield is an outdoor classroom with the power to transport students and visitors back to the
Date published: 7/27/2009
Its the Wilderness dude!
(posted by
stlkurtain
, July 28, 2009 11:17 pm)
Hey wedens, this site is near the entrance to the Wilderness battlefield. Since 60% of the Civil War battles happened in VA., there are going to be a few of these conflicts. CWPT has paid for land in the past and is not asking for free land here. They also cannot not buy or work to preserve all Civil War land. They have to focus on endangered land currently threatened by development. The question is: Can the Wal-Mart be placed elsewhere so that part of the most important war in U.S. History can be saved?
Nitwits?!
(posted by
stlkurtain
, July 28, 2009 10:57 pm)
I am disappointed in you Mandrake! The majority of teachers who attended the teacher institute spent their own time and money to try to become better teachers. I guess we are all nitwits. We enjoyed visiting the local battlefield but found it hard to follow the course of the battles due to the development. The essential question is: Should we strive to save our history or make it a victim to the commercial virus that is killing America? Is it wrong for us to want to save part of the actual Wilderness field?
:-)
(posted by
blitzburgh
, July 27, 2009 5:42 pm)
Ineedrights2 it's amazing how much we think alike
Omaha Beach
(posted by
grumpy
, July 27, 2009 5:40 pm)
A cemetery is on the site of Omaha Beach. The land is owned by the Dept. of the Interior, I believe. The ownership of the property is the key. In this case, it is private property that is zoned commercial. Buy it from the owner, and preserve it as you see fit.
Insufficient Data
(posted by
hobbs
, July 27, 2009 5:17 pm)
Did these teachers visit the site in dispute and see first-hand the commercial development that already exists between the Wilderness Battlefield and the proposed store? Who paid for their attendance at the CWPT event? Why is the only person quoted a CWPT emplyee, rather than some of the teachers involved? Why does the article ignore the other side of this argument? What is offered here is yet another editorial supporting the newspapers's stand.
|
 |
|||
|
|||
